Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It explains what the tool does, returns (score, verdict, assessment, launch history), and discloses scoring factors (survival rate, LP, platform diversity, etc.). No side effects mentioned, but mutation is not expected.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is fairly concise given the detail it conveys. It front-loads the main purpose and returns. A few redundant phrases could be trimmed, but overall it is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains return values (score, verdict, assessment, launch history) and scoring factors. It is complete enough for the agent to decide whether to use the tool and understand what to expect.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the 'address' parameter has a description, regex, and is required. The description adds value by specifying 'on Base' and the usage context, which helps the agent understand the parameter's role beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool checks the reputation of a token deployer wallet on Base and returns score, verdict, assessment, and launch history. It positions itself for evaluating tokens before investing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like mainstreet_score which probably evaluate tokens directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says 'Use when an LLM is asked to evaluate a token, or before aping into a recent launch.' This provides clear context. It does not mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the use case is well-defined.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.